search expand

France asks anthropologist for advice on burqa-ban

France banned burqas in public schools in 2004. Now, a parliamentary commission is investigating a possible ban on burqas in public places and anthropology professor John Bowen was asked to testify on this matter, Student Life and New York Times report.

As far as I know, anthropologists aren’t very visible in public debates in France.

Bowen is the author of the book Why the French don’t like Headscarves.

According to Bowen only a few hundred women in France wear burqas. A ban, though, could potentially have a profound impact on some of those women which means they would dissappear from public spaces and stay at home.

Bowen considers it highly unlikely that a ban would ever pass. “I think that French politicians will find that it would be absurd to create a set of clothing police to decide whether what a woman is wearing on the street counts as a burqa or a niqab…or just a headscarf.”

>> read the whole story in Student Life

>> Interview with Bowen in French on nonfiction.fr

I’ve collected some Bowen related links on my earlier post Why the French Don’t Like Headscarves. There are several papers on Bowen’s website.

SEE ALSO:

Thesis: Hijab empowers women

Lila Abu-Lughod: It’s time to give up the Western obsession with veiled Muslim women

Phd-Thesis: That’s why they embrace Islam

France banned burqas in public schools in 2004. Now, a parliamentary commission is investigating a possible ban on burqas in public places and anthropology professor John Bowen was asked to testify on this matter, Student Life and New York…

Read more

The Anthropology of Suicide – World Suicide Prevention Day

(Links updated 9.9.2019) It was around four months ago, I received the message of my friend’s sudden death. “Nobody knows”, I was told, “why she stepped in front of a train”. Afterwards I often wondered if her life could have been saved if we as a society had known and talked more about so-called mental health issues.

For these topics are still taboo. I was shocked to hear the stories from friends and colleagues who I told about what had happened: Many of them suddenly started telling about people they knew who have tried to end his/her life or who have committed suicide. They even mentioned people I know. Worldwide, more people die by suicide than by criminal acts or war – around one million per year. And up to 20 million people try to take their life every year. Europe and Asia have the highest suicide rates.

But this topic is hardly discussed. Neither in media (it was banned in Norwegian media until one year ago) nor in social sciences. The World Suicide Prevention Day that is held today (10.9.) wants to “improve education about suicide, disseminate information, decrease stigmatization and, most importantly, raise awareness that suicide is preventable”.

What is going on in a person’s mind who has decided to step in front of a train? Many people – around one in ten – have contemplated suicide, but only a minority of them made an attempt. Why did they take this step? What has happened in their life? How could the worsening of their situation have been prevented? Are there warning signs? Would psychological treatment have helped? But after all those horrible stories about mental health clinics – can we trust such institutions? Might they even increase the risk of suicide? And is suicide always committed by people who are ill? Maybe their decision to end their life is rather rational and should be respected? Will it therefore be wrong – and selfish – to force people to continue living?

After lots of discussions with friends and googling the same terms again and again, I learned that there are no simple answers.

I also found out that literature about suicide is dominated by psychology and biomedical sciences. Committing suicide is presented as an individual issue. People who commit suicide seem to be people who for some reason no longer were able to cope with their life. There was something “wrong” with them. But maybe there is also something wrong with society or with specific developments? According to Eugenia Tsao, there many reasons why anthropologists should politicize mental illness.

Maria Cecília de Souza Minayo, Fátima Gonçalves Cavalcante and Edinilsa Ramos de Souza write in their paper Methodological proposal for studying suicide as a complex phenomenon in the journal Cadernos de Saúde Pública that “few studies have simultaneously examined the individual, social, anthropological, and epidemiological aspects of suicide”. The micro and macro dimensions “remain dissociated in polarities that prioritize either the individual or society.”

They present an interdisciplinary approach to suicide that also includes an ethnographic study in a mining town. They show how the increase in suicide rates can be explained by a mix of factors, like radical structural changes that preceded and followed privatization of the mining company and also personal life histories of the workers.

But there seems to be an growing awareness also among researchers in biomedical sciences that their approach is reductionistic.

In a book review in the journal Jama – Journal of the American Medical Association, Antolin C. Trinidad explains that “suicide is best approached by getting out of the confines of biomedical sciences and into the domains of anthropology, sociology, and disciplines in the humanities”:

It is not a surprise that physicians spend the lion’s share of whatever interest they have in suicide studying its prevention, treatment, and the sundry clinical bullets that are potentially deployable in the clinics, rather than its history or the vicissitudes of individual despair and anguished self-awareness of pain that breed self-destruction. This is exactly what John C. Weaver, author of A Sadly Troubled History: The Meanings of Suicide in the Modern Age, calls “meta-pain.”

And also Diego De Leo calls in his editorial Why are we not getting any closer to preventing suicide? in the British Journal of Psychiatry for “multi-disciplinary teams to set up more integrated approaches for large- scale, long-term and thoroughly evaluated projects”. But “multi-disciplinary approaches to the prevention and investigation of suicide are often flagged up but virtually never practised”.

Anthropologists have been almost completely silent concerning the problem of suicide, writes Stefan Ecks in the abstract of his paper “Suicide: reflexions on Medical Anthropology research of suffering”. For hardly any other topic presents such great methodical and ethical difficulties for Medical Anthropology research:

Many methods that normally are standard for Medical Anthropology studies have to be radically re-evaluated when researching suicide: What role, for instance, does “participant observation” play in the context of extreme “tabooisation” on the part of the relatives? When is it acceptable to talk with relatives, how much time must have gone by? Also the ethical aspects of such research are enormous: Trauma, shame and speechlessness turn direct interviews into an ethically questionable method. How can suffering caused by suicide be examined as phenomenon in social context?

But Falk Blask who has taught suicide in his anthropology classes in Berlin, soon found out that it is a topic that attracts students. He prepared the course for 15 students, but 90 showed up according to today’s Mitteldeutsche Zeitung (updated link). Blask isn’t interested in suicide for no reason: Three years ago, one of his best friends took his life.

In his paper Urug. An Anthropological Investigation on Suicide in Palawan, Philippines (published in the journal Southeastasian Studies in 2003), Charles J. H MacDonald gives an overview over anthropology and suicide.

Also MacDonald states that anthropologists have dealt with suicide and suicidal behavior “much less frequently than their colleagues in the other social sciences”. He didn’t travel to the Philippines to study suicide either. But ever since he set foot on that place, he heard constant references to self-inflicted death. Figures show that the suicide rates are probably the highest or second highest in the world:

Why? Why would suicide, in such staggering numbers, affect those people whose society and culture is in no basic way different from other Palawan people, their immediate and non-suicidal neighbors in the hills and mountains of Southern Palawan? Why would such happy-looking and comparatively well-off people, going about their lives in orderly fashion, fall victims to despair? So far I have found no clear answer. The phenomenon remains mysterious and a complete puzzle.

Suicides, I want to conclude, are not primarily a sign of “that there was something wrong with a person”, but also that something might be wrong with society as a whole. Suicide prevention does not only or necessarily mean preventing people from committing suicide but also working towards a society where there are no reasons to take one’s life.

Unfortunately, these larger societal factors are totally missing in the current campaign for the World Suicide Prevention Day. Suicide prevention is also a political question. But the International Association for Suicide Prevention focuses on individual or so-called cultural factors (“People who are alienated from their country and culture of origin are vulnerable to various stresses, mental health problems, loneliness and suicidal behaviour.”).

I would like to leave you with maybe the best article about suicide that i found in the section mental illness at neuranthropology . It is A Journey through Darkness by Daphne Merkin. It actually answers all my questions that I asked in the beginning. Merkin’s beautifully written text also shows that there are no final answers.

I found also this article with facts about suicide and depression and how to help very helpful

SEE ALSO:

Why anthropologists should politicize mental illnesses

Shanghai: Study says 1 in 4 youths thinks about taking own life

Financial expert jumped in front of train after predicting recession

Vandana Shiva: The Suicide Economy Of Corporate Globalisation

UPDATE 9.9.2019: It seems a lot has happend since I wrote this post ten years ago. Just search anthropology AND suicide, f.ex. the section on suicide in the Anthropological Perspectives on Death blog or the post about Special Issue: Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, “Ethnographies of Suicide” at Somatosphere or Situating Suicide as an Anthropological Problem: Ethnographic Approaches to Understanding Self-Harm and Self-Inflicted Death by James Staples and Tom Widger

(Links updated 9.9.2019) It was around four months ago, I received the message of my friend's sudden death. "Nobody knows", I was told, "why she stepped in front of a train". Afterwards I often wondered if her life could…

Read more

IUAES-anthropologists “praise” Chinese government’s relation to minorities

Chinese authorities continue using the 16th congress by the International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences (IUAES) to spread propaganda. This is the most recent article: Overseas anthropologists: Adventure in Chinese ethnic village “eye-opening”

The congress arranged fieldtrips to what Xinhua calls “ethnic villages” nearby Kunming. Among other things the anthropologists were attending a dance presentation by the Axi minority group:

“The dance represented the essence of the Axi culture, such as primitive beliefs, songs, musical instruments, traditional costumes and religious rites.”

Anthropologist Chukiat Chaiboonsvi from Chiangwai University in Thailand said according to Xinhua that “the village’s traditional culture is “under proper protection”:

It looks very likely for the village to protect the culture and pass it to the next generation. The village is a good example of achieving economic development while at the same time protecting the precious culture.

I think the Chinese government has always been trying to support and take care of ethnic minorities. It’s difficult and it takes time, but so long as the government keeps going on, it will have good results.

Anthropologist Hillary Callan from London was according to Xinhua “impressed by the way the ethnic community works together with local government for its prosperity” and says:

China is absolutely one of the most interesting parts of the world for anthropologists. I wish I could stay longer to learn in greater depth about this country.

IUAES President Luis Alberto Vargas told Xinhua that he found the work made by the Chinese government in relation to the minorities was “something to be known world over”:

Many countries have the same situation as China does. That is a country having multi-nationalities. But not all countries have learned to handle this situation. The way that China is doing is just one of several possibilities. I think it has to be known to the world because it’s getting good results.

>> read the whole story

UPDATE: Even more from Xinhua (incl video): Minority culture exhibition described as enchanting and World listens to Chinese voice as Kunming declaration approved

Similar Xinhua articles exist in other languages like French and German. The congress has so far not been covered by other media.

UPDATE: Some impressions by a participant of the conference at Culture Matters: Anthropologists and the Politburo: Ali Adolf Wu writes that “while the Chinese government used this event to boost the standing of its ethnic policy after the events in Xinjiang in Tibet, anthropologists in China may have benefited from this extra attention.” He finds Petr Skalnik’s boycott of the conference very naive.

SEE ALSO:

Chinese media propaganda at IUAES anthropology conference in Kunming

Anthropology in China: IUAES-conference boycott due to Uyghur massacre

Chinese authorities continue using the 16th congress by the International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences (IUAES) to spread propaganda. This is the most recent article: Overseas anthropologists: Adventure in Chinese ethnic village "eye-opening"

The congress arranged fieldtrips…

Read more

Chinese media propaganda at IUAES anthropology conference in Kunming

(update 30.7: IUAES-anthropologists “praise” Chinese government’s relation to minorities) As I wrote a few days ago, the vice president of the International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences (IUAES) Petr Skalník decided to boycott the IUAES congress in Kunming, China due to the recent massacre where several hundred Uyghurs were killed.

“I do not want to be part of overt and/or tacit legitimation of evidently erroneous handling of nationality question in China”, he wrote in an open letter.

The conference started today and it is interesting to see how the Chinese authorities use the conference to promote both China and to legitimize their minority policy.

China anthropology enters new stage, more active in global study is the headline in People’s Daily Online.

They write about the vice-chairman of the 16th congress’s organizing committee, Hao Shiyuan, who said that “Chinese anthropology mainly focused on application research”. And in one case, he said, “more than 1,000 local anthropological scholars had took up fieldwork in 1950s to collect first-hand data and advise the government on the management of ethnic groups.”

Then they quote the IUAES President Vargas with these words: “Many anthropologists are interested in studying specific questions in China, as well as looking at the solutions that our Chinese colleagues have proposed to problems that are similar in other countries.”

The headline of an article by the offical Xinhua news agency is China listening to int’l experts in pursuit of coexistence of diversified cultures. We read that the Chinese Vice Premier Hui Liangyu delivered a speech at the opening ceremony. He said that the Chinese government “has attached great importance to the development of anthropological and ethnological sciences, and actively promotes theoretical studies, innovation and application.”

In a critical blog post at gokunming.com, we read that Yunnan University, which is hosting the congress, is off limits to the general public: “entry is only granted to registered participants who must display passes. Additionally, the university’s perimeter is under heavy police watch”:

No official explanation for barring the general public from Yunnan University’s main campus has been given, there are several possible reasons, including the attendance of Chinese Vice Premier Hui Liangyu at this morning’s opening ceremony.

In his address to the congress, Hui said that “pushing forward dialogues and cooperation among different civilizations is a joint responsibility of individuals and governments.”

Despite Hui’s upbeat statement, the recent ethnic violence in Xinjiang that left hundreds dead is likely a cause for ramped up security. Another potential reason for government uneasiness may be the occasional overlap between anthropology and intelligence gathering operations.

UPDATE 29.7.09: More from the offical Xinhua news agency: China says its ethnic policies “on right track”:

A senior Chinese official said Monday the government’s policies on ethnic affairs are “on the right track” and have helped create conditions for equality, unity and common prosperity among the country’s different ethnic groups.

Jia Qinglin, chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), China’s top political advisory body, made the remark in his meeting with Luis Alberto Vargas, the President of the International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences (IUAES), who is in China to attend The 16th IUAES World Congress held in China southwest province Yunnan.

Jia said the living standards of the ethnic groups were rising steadily and their political, economic and cultural rights were well safeguarded.

UPDATE: More propaganda: IUAES-anthropologists “praise” Chinese government’s relation to minorities (Xinhua 30.7.09)

SEE ALSO:

Anthropology in China: IUAES-conference boycott due to Uyghur massacre

The Problems with Chinese Anthropological Research

Anthropology: a Taboo Topic in China?

(update 30.7: IUAES-anthropologists "praise" Chinese government's relation to minorities) As I wrote a few days ago, the vice president of the International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences (IUAES) Petr Skalník decided to boycott the IUAES congress in Kunming, China…

Read more

Anthropology in China: IUAES-conference boycott due to Uyghur massacre

(UPDATE 27.7.09: Chinese media propaganda at IUAES anthropology conference in Kunming? / UPDATE 30.7: IUAES-anthropologists “praise” Chinese government’s relation to minorities )
Last year, the conference was cancelled by the Chinese government for fear of protests. Next week, the 16th congress by the International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences (IUAES) finally will be held – but without the IUAES vice president Petr Skalník. He decided not to participate due to the recent massacre where several hundred Uyghurs were killed.

“I will not meet and shake hands with people who must be responsible for the above tragedy”, Skalnik writes in a letter to the State Ethnic Affairs Commission of the People´s Republic of China that he also emailed to a large number of anthropologists (and that was forwarded to me), hoping many will read it.

Two weeks ago, Skalnik received an invitation letter from the State Ethnic Affairs Commission, indicating that on July 26, on the eve of the 16th World Congress of International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences (IUAES), “several IUAES high officials” will meet in Beijing with “a senior State leader of China”:

This invitation was a surprise to me as I was not at all planning to travel via through Beijing on my way to Kunming. No agenda for the meeting was mentioned except that it is „in honor of the IUAES leadership“.

At the same time as the letter was coming, there was this massacre happening in Urumqi:

Although this grave event directly touching the field of activities of your Commission, namely ethnic affairs, there were no signs either directly from PRC SEAC or from the Chinese Association of Anthropology and Ethnology. 

My life experience of studying ethnic problems in other countries (e.g. South Africa, West Africa, Soviet Union and Europe) have taught me that conflicts of the size like that in Urumqi this July or Lhasa last year are not and cannot be caused just by some malicious plotters. There must be also a deal of responsibility on the side of the power holders, your Commission not excluded. However, no self-criticism and constructive proposal for remedy has come out from China till this very day.

Therefore, I have to turn down your invitation for the above ethical reasons. Human rights were served a crippling blow in Urumqi by apparently wrong analysis and heavy-handed response of the Chinese state, your Commission included.  I will not meet and shake hands with people who must be responsible for the above tragedy. I will not accept reimbursement monies and other perks mentioned from the Chinese state. I protest in this way against policies which smack of demographic aggression and ethnocide.
 
I also will not participate in the Kunming congress (to be held next week, July 27-31, 2009) because I do not want to be part of overt and/or tacit legitimation of evidently erroneous handling of nationality question in China. As a person with a particularly strong IUAES loyalty who participated in almost all its congresses and other events starting from Permanent Council meeting in Prague back in 1962 I was very keen on participating and playing active role as a Distinguished Speaker, member of the Executive Council (EC) of IUAES, Czech member of the Permanent Council of IUAES, chairperson of the Commission on Theoretical Anthropology (COTA) and thrice paper giver. The above mentioned reasons, however, thwarted these intentions. Under present circumstance I would not feel free to express my thoughts and research findings.

He also indicates possible discrimination of Chinese scholars with ethnic minority background who were not able to register for the conference. Also some scholars from abroad were not able to obtain Chinese visa.

He closes with these lines:

I would like to emphasize that this letter was written by myself alone and I express my views freely as I did when I criticised apartheid policies in South Africa, misguided theories and practices in ethnic field in the Soviet Union or failure of American anthropologists to warn the then U.S. government of the adverse consequences of its war plans and acts in Iraq. Anthropologists and ethnologists by the nature of their work which includes ethics of research, respect for human life and culture, do not know of any „internal affairs“, especially if human rights are violated.

I have made a pdf of the documents, including the letter he sent by email.

See also Chinese translation of this post on uighurbiz.net

UPDATE 27.7.09: Chinese media propaganda at IUAES anthropology conference in Kunming?

UPDATE 30.7.09: More propaganda: IUAES-anthropologists “praise” Chinese government’s relation to minorities (Xinhua 30.7.09)

Concerning the canceled conference, see China Cancels IAES (Savage Minds, 8.5.08) and Anthropology: a Taboo Topic in China? (Angry Chinese Blogger, 24.5.08).

See also related posts The Problems with Chinese Anthropological Research and The special thing about the Tibet protests

(UPDATE 27.7.09: Chinese media propaganda at IUAES anthropology conference in Kunming? / UPDATE 30.7: IUAES-anthropologists "praise" Chinese government's relation to minorities )
Last year, the conference was cancelled by the Chinese government for fear of protests. Next week, the 16th…

Read more